Here’s What Conservatives Need to Do

This newspaper recently pondered the possibility of an identity crisis among conservatives and the Republican Party. It suggested deep divisions within the GOP “over perhaps the most fundamental question there is: What lies at the philosophical core of the party?”

While the question is certainly fundamental, the answers won’t be found in the obsessive self-doubt, touchy-feely probing and compulsive Woody Allenesque angst that conservatism’s psychotherapists seem to savor. Political parties and great movements are not alchemized in crucibles of sensitivity training or group analysis. (“Mrs. Smith, please share with us how you really feel about being a conservative.”)

Ugh. The problem is not with conservative principles; those are immutable. The conservative movement needs to spend less time soul-searching or wondering what it stands for and more time in getting its message out. Playing more offense and less defense. Creating a broader talent pool to run campaigns. Converting strategic thinking into tactical mastery.

Fundamental beliefs are only as effective as the ability to propagate them for one’s cause. Tragically for the conservative movement, it has been in tactical retreat for two election cycles. But it’s a surmountable challenge, and this political cause must not waste valuable energy wallowing in the endless agony and pessimistic swoons that its critics propose and its adversaries wish for.

The melding of two circumstances slowed the conservative march over the last few years. The Republican Party and its allies have been less effective in communicating a coherent message. The Democratic Party and its camp followers have been very effective in mauling Republican messengers. (Newt Gingrich, R.I.P.)

Today’s left-wingers are massively disciplined in keeping what power they have and regaining what power they have lost. Their focus is extraordinary, and the means by which it is expressed--for worse, not better--is tough-minded, unrepentant, remorseless and . . . successful.

Moreover, the reason that conservative philosophy seems to be ill-defined is because of who helps define it. And that’s the mainstream media. Try as they might--and many fair-minded journalists do--they are human. Their instinct and unconscious inclination make them uncomfortable with conservative views and shape the reportage of those policies and its policymakers.

So when the search begins for “core Republican beliefs,” it mires in the bog of media interpretation. A case in point was The Times’ recent description of former Gov. Pete Wilson as a “rare Republican who was for things,” not against. Get it? Most Republicans are therefore negative (bad), not positive (good). No wonder there is puzzlement over Republican and conservative beliefs.

What are they for? Let me count the ways.

Congressional Republicans are for education savings accounts so parents can enjoy tax relief in arming their children with excellence. They voted scholarships for the children of 2,000 low-income families in Washington who could escape to better private schools as have the children of Clinton and Gore. Democrats said no, and Clinton vetoed. Republicans were for securities litigation reform to protect our high-tech industry against legal predators. Most Democrats opposed, and Clinton originally vetoed it.

Republicans support fast-track trade legislation, which most congressional Democrats oppose. Republicans are for tort reform, which Democrats attack on behalf of trial lawyers. Republicans have been for across-the-board tax cuts, aggressive tax simplification, vigorous welfare reform and repeal of death taxes. Liberals hate these changes.

Conservatives are for adequate agricultural water supplies; liberals fight for fish at the expense of farmers. Republicans fought for the Strategic Defense Initiative to protect our children from destructive nuclear missiles and for leverage to defeat the Soviets in the cold war. Democrats hated it.

Republicans are for prayer in schools (just like prayer in Congress), habeas corpus reform, a stronger military, local control of education, less bureaucracy, and Social Security protection that includes reasonable and responsible personal investment options.

Guess what liberals think. When Republicans are tied to conflicts instead of programs and policies, it’s no wonder ambiguity sets in. Worse still is their lethargy in snapping back from temporary political setbacks.

Marshall McLuhan argued that the “medium is the message.” Wrong. The message is the message. So here’s one for 1999.

Save our neighborhood schools; reduce family taxes; stop lawyer greed; confiscate assault weapons from convicted criminals; and cut welfare by 50% in five years, with the savings split between renovating schools and funding police. Let the debate begin.